Dear players,

after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later.

Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach.

Phase 1
1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option.

2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. They can be replace but not removed (yellow)

3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity.

3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret.

3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto

4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations.

Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills

5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets

6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets.

7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments

8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented)

Phase 2)
Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar.

Phase 3)
More Modules and weapons

I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names.

See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet

I know the risks, and all the history. I believe there is a way to make this work. Vehicle players will have to realize that the progression will not be nearly as steep as before, and that there will be a learning period while we balance the content, erring on the safe side.

Without some form of AI threat, there is no reason to use HAVs except to fight other HAVs. There needs to be that first escalation to get the game going. HAVs may end up being even easier to kill at lower levels, I don't have the stats yet. Again, we want everyone to have a way to progress, and feel that they are unlocking and earning something of value.

If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary.

Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay

DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like.

Would rather see equipment slots make a debut on vehicles. (deployables)

Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system.

And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill.

Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people.

With the rough point that there's ups and downs to fitting and gear quality and such, yes, that's roughly what I'm suggesting. One player should equal one player.

Number enthusiasts,

you can take a glance at how I am approaching the progression calculation in the tabs HAV Loadouts and more new tabs.

Basically I am creating a step by step progression plan, while managing somewhat competitive fits.

Take a look.

Guys

I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap.

To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually.

I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP.

So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing.

Also, recommend some shield modules for lows.

Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them"

Thanks!

For game balance they are interdependent, not independent.

Each has to go with the other. Neither exists in a vacuum.

As far as fixing them? Until Rattati comes to the end or very close to the completion I literally CANNOT offer changes, only tag what we have. It's why I'm participating. So as soon as we have finalized numbers, then I'm going to work.

Im just here to point out what might go pear shaped.

my chrome numbers were based on what worked. But right now we are working basically from scratch. So I'm mostly here to watch, crunch numbers, poke soraya occasionally when he misbehaves and stand by to give recommendations.

The reason I used the AV values in my chrome spreadsheets was because those AV nunumbers WORKED at the time.

From what I'm seeing from ratman those numbers are no longer valid. So I'll cook new numbers based on what you HAV nerds hash out.

Your way means vehicles can kill infantry but not the reverse.

This is not balance.

Nor is it fun.

I am not wrong because infantry and AV exist together in a combined arms shooter.

Your assertion only works if there are no infantry to be casually farmed for free KD.

Caps would add too much to try and do at once on top of what we have now.

1: Caps don't create balance, balanced numbers create balance.

2: So more work for the dev. are you for this or against this?

3: Even in Legion it wouldn't work. I don't think you understand how much cap management takes up for brain power.

Passive modules (Resistance Amps for your example) would accomplish a psuedo cap-stable fit.

Also CCP is not going to dedicate months to implement a capacitor system. Maybe if they had a full Dev team dedicated to the game, but we don't.

Well that's cute Sparky, but again it's probably not happening considering the lack of Dev support on Dust.

Also I'm reintroducing passive modules, as I've said like...a dozen times. But i can't expect you to comprehend things so I'll let it pass.

How about a Explosive Plate mod that only gives ehp if you are hit by missiles?
special plate or frequency shield that only buffs against a certain weapon type (Rock,Paper thing)

spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.

An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.

Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.

I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users.

Point 3 is not bad, if every weapon deal damage to LAV, it means less murder taxi

Who use a LAV for something different from murder taxi or Jlav now?

How about you not try and berate people for the horrendous crime of not perfectly agreeing with you.

People have opinions.

They usually don't seem to mimic yours. Get over it.

I could direct you to my post where I discussed calmly where I got my stats from. Where I compared 4 rounds to a full Missile clip. Where I also used the rail stats True Adamance showed me. Where i also explain my views on DHAV. (hint post #370 pg 19) Though I'd like you to quote me on saying rails can fire all shots faster than a missile turret can, seeing as you pulled that one from where the sun don't shine.

But, letting you vent your emotions, its partly a entertaining spectacle, but mostly the main reason why the devs, and pretty much anyone who isn't speaker struggle to take anything you say seriously. Its hurting more than helping. Hell, even by responding to you i am partly responsible for derailing the thread.

We can talk up the entertainment value of your deflating ego somewhere else, but lets leave this thread with constructive commentary, shall we?

I bring this up because you're rather frequently crossing the line into personal attack. This is neither constructive and it's against the ToS.

Learn how to talk to your peers. Because you are not above anyone posting on this board.

There is a difference between attacking your thesis/position and attackingng YOU. I can assault your logic all I want. I can say your methods of communicating with people are childish. I cannot start making callouts about how clearly you are (insert epithet here) by implication or outright saying it. You are flagrantly doing the latter.

Quit trying to dominate everyone via post.

We are having none of it. You are one voice among many. Not "the one."

You want respect for your ideas? Earn that respect.

One thing is for certain:

Dual hardener shield HAVs need to die in a fire. Waaaaaay OP.

It is a form of tiericide, but I am not sold on its necessity, why bother if you aren't getting better. I enjoy unlocking and fitting proto and seeing how well I have done. The issue isn't proto gear, it's fair fights.

And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant.

question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low.

1. Frankly, it's not
2. We will just rebalance

That was not the question.

There is no shield based mod available, like regulators for dropsuits.

it was called power diagnostic unit. it gave a modest bonus to shield hp, shield recharge, and PG. it was for pilots that wanted a full passive shield tank setup.

that was back when tank shields had no delay though, so id also add shield delay reduction to it as well or replace the PG bonus for the shield delay reduction.

If you did constant passive regen, regen rate would have to be exceptionally low since it would mean the vehicle would be naturally negating X DPS naturally, all the time. As I've stated before, unmodified shield regen in EVE is VERY slow for this very reason.

Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works.

Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore"

Again the only reason you're offering is "because lore". Give me a reason to why breaking existing convention would make the gameplay better.

Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue.

And I know you pretty much worship Chromo as your personal messiah, but that doesn't mean constant shield regen was better. It was often very confusing for new players who would see dropsuits perform extremely differently than vehicles, such that shield vehicles performed more like armor infantry. It's inconsistent, confusing, and poorly designed.

Now obviously vehicles have active modules and dropsuits do not, so we'll leave that out of it since those concepts are non comparable.

However, it is a more consistent design to have shield vehicles and infantry both operate on natural, but delayed regen system with modules to reduce recharge and boost rate. Just as it is more consistent to have both armor vehicles and infantry fit modules which passively repairs armor constantly at a very slow rate.

You're basically saying "I want to break existing convention to make shields perform like armor". If you want constant regen at a slow rate, why do you not just use armor then and keep the conventions between vehicle and infantry the same?

I. I never said I want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles. I said Ideally more AV would on the field at any given moment so that vehicles can afford to be stronger. I'm actually not a huge fan of AP weapons doing considerable AV damage.

II. Just because Cromo had good stuff it in, does not mean all of it was good.

III. Again "because lore", I guess that's you're only reason.

IV. Also there is discussion about moving infantry to having all tiers have the same slot layout with just increasing resources per level, so yeah, they very well might end up on the same type of system. Also Ratatti has already clearly talked about reworking the skill tree, and you're right, it should move to having better core skills, and it likely will. Again I will ask, if you want a tanking style that reps constantly, why not just use armor? Or is that "because roleplaying"? ;)

Butte 1: Being petulant again, no one likes whining.

Butte 2: Yep we want to spoil your fun by not allowing you to be invulnerable. There are plenty of games where you can use an invulnerability code at any time. go play one.

Butte 3: Your facts and what everyone else recognize as anecdote or circular logic share some striking similarities.

Butte 4: This isn't EVE Online.
Butte 4a: MMOS spaceship game does not balance like an FPS. I ran that statement past a five year old. They said it made no sense. I concur.
Butte 4b: You run a gallente assault suit? Filthy infantry you have no business posting in a vehicle thread.

i. Then don't accuse me of saying things and trying to skew the conversation.

ii. Sure, lots of good stuff. Again, not 100% was.

iii. The way tanking styles work have nothing to do with hacking objectives. You're deflecting.

iv. It's impossible to make a direct comparison to EVE because EVE doesn't run off of a cooldown/duration system, so the relationship between shields and armor in EVE don't work in Dust. Does armor regenerate passively? No, but you can make a Cap Stable fit in EVE which armor can and will regenerate constantly. This is achieved in Dust with passive armor reps. Active modules are obviously a non-stable alternative which provide a larger benefit but with a duration which needs to be pulsed manually.

So in reality, it doesn't differ all that much from EVE once you get the proper modules in. Shield regens without modules, armor does not. Both are capable of stable and unstable fits via passive and active modules. The only difference is that shields in Dust have a much higher natural shield regen rate in exchange for a recharge delay, namely because the pace of combat is far different.

So hey, just for you buddy, we'll add in a Flux Shield Regulator that'll drop your little recharge delay down to zero, and give you a comfy 5-10HP/s recharge, because that's about how good it would be in EVE. Sounds good?

there's a bucket over there. please go cry into it when you realize that your efforts are futile.